Note: More than 13,000 persons are
eligible to practice law in Oregon. Some of them share the same name or
similar names. All discipline reports should be read carefully for names,
addresses and bar numbers.

In 10 of the matters Dunn failed to pursue his clients’ objectives
and failed to maintain adequate communications with them, in violation of DR
6-101(B) or RPC 1.3 (neglect of a legal matter entrusted to a lawyer), and
RPC 1.4 (failure to keep a client reasonably informed and failure to promptly
respond to reasonable requests for information). In three matters Dunn failed
to refund unearned fees to clients, in violation of DR 2-110(A)(3) or RPC 1.16(d)
(failure to promptly refund unearned fees upon termination). In six matters
he improperly handled client funds or property, or failed to provide accountings,
in violation of DR 9-101(A) or RPC 1.15-1(c) (failure to deposit and maintain
client funds in trust) and DR 9-101(C)(3) or RPC 1.15-1(d) (failure to provide
an accounting to clients).

Dunn also violated DR 1-103(C) or RPC 8.1(a)(2) (failure to cooperate
in disciplinary investigation) when he failed to respond to the bar’s
inquiry in nine matters.

Beginning Oct. 4, 2007, Dunn was suspended by the court, pursuant
to the bar’s 3.1 petition for temporary suspension.

Dunn did not seek Oregon Supreme Court review of the trial panel
decision.

Daniels represented a client on a wide variety of legal issues
for many years. In 2002, he and the client decided to form an LLC to purchase
a large parcel of land together, intending to use the land to raise and harvest
Christmas trees. Daniels prepared the paperwork creating the LLC, and continued
to act as the client’s attorney during their business partnership.

In 2002, the partnership bought a 450-acre parcel of land and
timber; the client paid for his entire share of the property in cash, while
Daniels financed part of his share of the property through a contract with
the seller. This contract was in the name of both the client and Daniels, although
the entire obligation was owed by Daniels.

In 2006, the partnership bought two additional parcels of land.
The client paid for his share of the property in cash, while Daniels financed
his share through a contract with the seller. The seller agreed to take the
contract from Daniels, however, only after the client signed a personal guarantee.

Because failure by Daniels to pay his obligations to the seller
could have had a negative impact upon the client, Daniels’ interests
and those of the client in the transactions were not identical. Daniels did
not make any full written disclosures and his conduct therefore violated DR
5-104(A) and RPC 1.8(a).

During the time that Daniels and the client were business partners,
Daniels prepared all of the legal documents for the venture and for the purchase
of properties. He prepared a timber sale contract making both partners responsible
for monthly payments to the seller, even though it was Daniels who owed all
of the money. Daniels also allowed his client to sign the personal guarantee
that enabled Daniels to make the second property purchase in 2006, even though
Daniels was at that time becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the partnership
and in fact took steps to dissolve it shortly after the purchase. By continuing
to represent the client when his own personal, business, property or financial
interests reasonably could have affected his professional judgment on the client’s
behalf — without making full written disclosures — Daniels violated
DR 5-101(A)(1) and RPC 1.7(a)(2).

Daniels was admitted to practice in Oregon in 1973. Daniels had
no prior disciplinary record, did not have a dishonest or selfish motive during
the transactions in question, and displayed a cooperative attitude towards
disciplinary proceedings.

MATTHEW R. AYLWORTH
OSB #070930
Eugene
Public reprimand

On March 14, 2008, the disciplinary board approved a stipulation
for discipline reprimanding Eugene lawyer Matthew R. Aylworth for violating
RPC 3.5(b) (ex parte communications with the court) and RPC 8.4(a)(4) (conduct
prejudicial to the administration of justice).

Aylworth represented the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed in circuit
court. The defendant retained a lawyer to represent her in the matter. Aylworth’s
client decided to dismiss the lawsuit. Aylworth agreed with the defendant’s
lawyer that if the lawsuit was dismissed then the defendant was entitled to
recover her reasonable attorney fees and costs. Aylworth subsequently signed
and filed with the court a notice for general judgment of dismissal without
prejudice in which he inaccurately represented that the dismissal was without
costs to any of the parties. Aylworth failed to serve a copy of the notice
on the defendant’s lawyer. On that same day, Aylworth also filed with
the court a general judgment of dismissal without prejudice. Aylworth failed
to serve a copy of the proposed judgment on defendant’s lawyer not less
than three days prior to submitting it to the court, as required by UTCR 5.100.
The court signed the proposed judgment.

The stipulation recited that Aylworth was negligent in that he
failed to review carefully the notice he signed and the proposed judgment before
he submitted them to the court and failed to determine that the documents were
not being properly served on defendant’s lawyer. Aylworth subsequently
signed a stipulation to set aside the improperly obtained judgment when it
was brought to his attention.

BRUCE A. GUNTER
OSB #820570
Portland
Reinstatement denied

On March 27, 2008, the Oregon Supreme Court issued an opinion
denying the reinstatement application of Bruce A. Gunter, after concluding
that Gunter failed to prove that he had the requisite good moral character
and general fitness to practice law.

Gunter was admitted in Oregon in 1982, but left the state and
changed careers in 1985, eventually voluntarily resigning from the bar. After
criminal charges and a job loss associated with a serious drug and alcohol
problem, Gunter obtained treatment in 1996 and stopped drug use. However, he
eventually began to drink alcohol again. Based on expert testimony concerning
the risk of relapse, the court found Gunter’s continued drinking to leave
doubt whether he had overcome his drug and alcohol habits so that he was not
a danger to the public.

Gunter also filed for bankruptcy twice in eight years, the most
recent of which, shortly before he applied for reinstatement, was immediately
after he procured a $400,000 loan to purchase a new home. While filing bankruptcy,
standing alone, does not reflect on moral character, the circumstances here
suggested that Gunter viewed the bankruptcy proceeding as a convenient means
of escaping the consequences of his own inability to manage finances, rather
than as a remedy of last resort for unforeseen expenses. Therefore, the court
was left with substantial doubt whether Gunter was prepared to honor his financial
obligations in the manner expected of lawyers.

CLARK WILLES
OSB #863160
Corvallis
30-day suspension

Effective Mar. 27, 2008, the disciplinary board approved a stipulation
for discipline suspending Corvallis lawyer, Clark Willes for 30 days for violations
of: RPC 1.2(c)(engaging in or assisting a client in conduct known to be illegal
or fraudulent); RPC 3.3(a)(4) (knowingly concealing or failing to disclose
to a tribunal that which a lawyer is required to reveal); RPC 8.4(a)(3) (conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation); RPC 8.4(a)(4) (conduct
prejudicial to the administration of justice) and ORS 9.460(2) (seeking to
mislead the court by artifice).

Willes’ violations resulted from his conduct in connection
with a violation trial where he allowed someone other than the defendant to
sit at counsel table while the true defendant sat in the gallery. The purpose
of the subterfuge was to see if the state’s witness could make a positive
identification of the defendant. Although Willes did not affirmatively state
that the imposter was the defendant, his actions gave that impression to the
court and the state. Willes disclosed the ruse following the testimony of the
state’s first witness.

Willes was admitted to practice in 1986, and had been previously
reprimanded for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. In mitigation,
the stipulation recited that Willes did not act with a selfish motive, was
cooperative with the bar and expressed remorse for his conduct, including an
apology to the court.

Dang was the owner and licensed contractor of a construction
company while her husband was the manager. Dang’s husband negotiated
for the construction of a house with some buyers. Dang learned that the buyers
wanted to finance the entire cost of the house with a loan from a bank but
that the bank was not willing to lend sufficient funds to the buyers so that
they could build the house they wanted.

Dang subsequently signed a contract with the buyers under which
Dang’s construction company was to build a home for a certain fixed price.
The fixed price was less than the cost of the house the buyers initially wanted
to build. Dang knew that the contract would be shown to the bank as part of
the buyers’ loan application and approval process.

The buyers secured financing with the bank. In connection with
the closing of the bank loan, Dang signed a number of documents that linked
the loan to the contract. One of those documents specifically stated that no
changes could be made to the contract without prior written approval from the
bank.

A few days later Dang signed as a witness a second contract between
her construction company and the buyers. Dang knew the second contract was
different than the first in that the fixed price was greater and construction
profits were to be paid pursuant to a separate promissory note between her
husband and the buyers rather than from the proceeds of the bank loan. Although
the promissory note, which was negotiated and prepared by Dang’s husband,
did not reference the house that was to be built, Dang knew that the amount
of the note was the intended construction profit. Neither Dang, her husband
nor the buyers informed the bank that the construction company and the buyers
had signed a second contract. Ultimately there was no actual injury to the
bank because the house was built and the buyers remained current in their payments
to the bank.

TODD W. WETSEL
OSB #904102
Salt Lake City, Utah
Disbarment

Effective March 31, 2008, the disciplinary board disbarred former
Portland lawyer Todd Wetsel in connection with his mishandling of five client
matters and his lawyer trust account.

An order of default had previously been entered establishing
that Wetsel had committed multiple violations of: RPC 1.3 (neglect of a legal
matter); RPC 1.4(a) (failure to keep a client reasonably informed of the status
of the client’s case); RPC 1.4(b) (failure to explain a matter to the
extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions);
RPC 1.15-1(a) (failure to hold client’s property separate and deposit
client funds in trust); RPC 1.15-1(b) (depositing personal funds in excess
of bank fees into trust); RPC 1.15-1(c) (failure to deposit and maintain client
funds in trust); RPC 1.15-1(d) (failure to account for and promptly provide
client funds or property); RPC 1.15-2(n) (failure to pay fees associated with
trust account); RPC 1.16(a)(2) (failure to withdraw from representation where
a physical or mental condition impaired ability to represent a client); RPC
1.16(d) (failure to take steps to protect a client’s interest upon the
termination of representation); RPC 8.1(a)(2) (failure to respond to lawful
demands from a disciplinary authority); RPC 8.4(a)(3) (conduct involving fraud,
dishonesty, deceit or misrepresentation) and RPC 8.4(a)(4) (conduct prejudicial
to the administration of justice).

The trial panel found that Wetsel had knowingly caused harm to
his clients, had abandoned his practice, and, as he is currently serving a
suspension for similar misconduct, engaged in a pattern of practice that warranted
disbarment.

Applications

Reciprocity applicants listed
The following have applied for admission under the reciprocity, house counsel
or law teacher rules. The Board of Bar Examiners requests that members examine
this list and bring to the board’s attention in a signed letter any information
that might influence the board in considering the moral character of any applicant
for admission. Send correspondence to Admissions Director, Oregon State Board
of Bar Examiners, 16037 S.W. Upper Boones Ferry Rd., P.O. Box 231935, Tigard,
OR 97281-1935.

Notice of reinstatement applications
The following attorneys have filed applications for reinstatement as active
members of the Oregon State Bar pursuant to Rule of Procedure (BR) 8.1.

Christian Day of Portland, OSB #932517. In 1996, Day was
administratively suspended from bar membership. The suspension was later determined
to be void. Over the past 12 years, Day has been a student, has traveled, and
has been employed in various positions unrelated to the law. After reinstatement,
he will work as an associate with the Beaverton law firm of Ravelo Johnson
Nguyen providing indigent criminal defense services.

William A. Nootenboom of Portland, OSB #961952. Nootenboom
transferred to inactive status in 2002, because he was not practicing law.
Since 1995, he has pursued a variety of entrepreneurial projects, including
development of a specialty auto repair company, real estate development and
consulting services. Following his reinstatement, he will be of counsel to
the Portland law firm of Tarlow Naito & Summers.

Sandra H. Westin of California, OSB #925227. In 2000, Westin
transferred to inactive status because she had relocated to California, where
she was admitted to practice law in 2001. (She is also an inactive member of
the Michigan bar.) Currently employed as an attorney for Fidelity Information
Services in San Francisco, after her reinstatement Westin plans to relocate
to Brookings and open a solo law practice.

The Rules of Procedure require the Board of Governors to conduct
an investigation of BR 8.1 reinstatement applications to determine whether
applicants possess the good moral character and general fitness to practice
law, and that the resumption of the practice of law in this state by these
applicants will not be detrimental to the administration of justice or the
public interest. Any person with information relevant to these applications
is asked to contact promptly the Regulatory Services Division at the Oregon
State Bar, P.O. Box 231935, Tigard, OR 97281-1935, (503) 620-0222, or (800)
452-8260, ext. 343.